This is an interesting argument

Yet since we borrow the money for the aid, we are asking our children to fund our philanthropy.

And this:

The greater risk is that the gradual nationalisation of our charity will so undermine public altruism that we end up giving less as a nation than we do now.

I rather recall that private overseas charity from Sweden and the like is very much smaller than that from us.

10 comments on “This is an interesting argument

  1. Yup, future generations in Britain are paying for Nigerian Mercedes fleets and apartments in Dubai. All so a handful of politicians and NGO parasites can look smug at conferences in Rio.

  2. Tim has it. I thought it was an open secret that “development aid” was there to enrich foreign dictators. It’s straightforward purchase of political influence. Which means it might be a good deal for us even if it is morally abhorrent.

  3. Bloke in Germany – “It’s straightforward purchase of political influence. Which means it might be a good deal for us even if it is morally abhorrent.”

    I wouldn’t mind if it was buying political influence. But where is the evidence that it does? We usually give money to people who hate us. Who then have every incentive to hate us more. Which the geniuses at the FCO think can only be resolved by more aid.

    Tanzania’s experiment with collectivisation was paid for by Northern European governments – the same ones that Tanzania denounced at the UN for racism and imperialism.

    In the same way, the BBC gave a six figure sum to the 7-7 bomber’s “charity”. Of course they did. Aid giving is a mark of a civilisation in deep trouble.

  4. I wouldn’t mind if it was buying political influence. But where is the evidence that it does? We usually give money to people who hate us. Who then have every incentive to hate us more.

    Quite. I didn’t notice the Nigerians being particularly grateful when Cameron doubled their aid budget when I was there.

  5. We have cut back on giving to British charities ever since I learnt how often they’d become fake charities. I wouldn’t dream of giving to overseas charities since apparently my tax payments are doing that job already.

  6. 0.7% – how many people (except for millionaires who do not need to worry about it) will even notice that share of their income?
    dearieme wants us to cut back on giving to “fake charities” but there are still dozens of real overseas charities – try the Leprosy Mission for starters.

  7. Our children are not being taxed to fund *our* philanthropy. What say do we get on where the money goes? Charity ought to be a matter of conscience and personal resources rather than taxation and political whims.

    IIRC The 0.7% figure was plucked from the arse of Maurice Strong. That alone is reason to oppose it.

    That is is a UN target, and that Dave was in an ungentlemanly hurry to achieve it for personal political glory are further reasons to oppose it.

  8. hmm.

    money is fungible, government spending is funded by a mix of taxation and borrowing, hence aid is funded by a mix of taxation and borrowing. it’s Richard Murphy level stupidity to claim aid is funded by borrowing.

    plus why is the moral case for our children (who we may assume will be better off then us) giving charity any different from the moral case for us giving charity? If the aid we give is funded by our children, doesn’t that mean the aid our children will give will be funded by their children? So we all get to give aid funded by somebody else but have to pay for somebody else’s aid – it nets out the same as if we pay for our own aid, plus or minus a bit.

    is there any evidence private charitable giving responds to the size of DFID’s budget?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.